I’ve been thinking about what makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on. What I have noted is the constant difference in how each side places its emphasis, and that this shows up in its speech. Specifically, the skeptics use declarative, as in “this will”, “this shall” or “this does”, and, of course, its negative equals. The warmists use conditionals, i.e. words like “could” or “should” or “may” or “might” that indicate undefined probabilities and, in truth, possibilities, things that are determinable only after the fact.

The use of conditionals after 25 years is remarkable (here I make a declarative statement). Despite all the models and claims of correlation/matching of observation, we still have no “does”, “shall” or “will” in the IPCC or other CAGW programme. The dangers and fears are in the distant future, discussed only…

The meteorological station at Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland closed in 2000[1]. A lot of the data has been made online access via scanned logbooks and some digitised data, paid for primarily by lottery funds.

An unpublished version of the data is used as part of a fractional delay demonstration.

Fractional delay means one timeseries can be delayed or advanced in time relative to another by any amount including any fraction of one sample time. This is achieved by a short digital filter (5 taps) which is “designed” by the spreadsheet to user demand.

Mann rose to prominence by supposedly being able to detect “faint” signals using “advanced” statistical methods. Lewandowsky has taken this to a new level: using lew-statistics, lew-scientists can deduce properties of population with no members. Josh summarizes the zen of lew-statistics as follows: